Recently, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) released clinical criteria and a grading system for nociplastic pain affecting the musculoskeletal system. These criteria replaced the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant central sensitization (CS) pain and accounted for clinicians’ need to identify (early) and correctly classify patients having chronic pain according to the pain phenotype. Still, clinicians and researchers can become confused by the multitude of terms and the variety of clinical criteria available. Therefore, this paper aims at (1) providing an overview of what preceded the IASP criteria for nociplastic pain (‘the past’); (2) explaining the new IASP criteria for nociplastic pain in comparison with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain (‘the present’); and (3) highlighting key areas for future implementation and research work in this area (‘the future’). It is explained that the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are in line with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain but are more robust, comprehensive, better developed and hold more potential. Therefore, the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are important steps towards precision pain medicine, yet studies examining the clinimetric and psychometric properties of the criteria are urgently needed.

Introduction The differentiation between acute and chronic pain can be insufficient for appropriate pain management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of the predominant pain type (nociceptive, neuropathic, or central sensitization [CS] pain) in breast cancer survivors (BCS) with chronic pain. The secondary aims were to examine (1) differences in health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) between the different pain groups; and (2) the associations between patient‐, disease‐, and treatment‐related factors and the different pain types. Methods To determine the prevalence of the predominant type of pain, a recently proposed classification system was used. BCS were asked to complete the VAS for pain, Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questionnaire, Margolis Pain Diagram, Central Sensitization Inventory, and Short Form 36 (SF‐36). Results Ninety‐one BCS participated, among whom 25.3% presented neuropathic pain, 18.7% nociceptive pain, and 15.4% CS pain. Mixed pain was found in 40.6%. A significant intergroup difference in HRQoL was found for SF‐36 “general health” (P = 0.04). The odds for the presence of CS rather than nociceptive pain are 26 times higher in patients exposed to hormone therapy in comparison to the nonexposed (odds ratio 25.95, 95% confidence interval 1.33 to 504.37, P = 0.03). Conclusion Neuropathic pain is most frequent in BCS. Strong associations were found between CS pain and hormone therapy.

No abstract

with details of the nature of the infringement. We will investigate the claim and if justified, we will take the appropriate steps.

This review discusses chronic pain, multiple modifiable lifestyle factors, such as stress, insomnia, diet, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity, and the relationship between these lifestyle factors and pain after cancer. Chronic pain is known to be a common consequence of cancer treatments, which considerably impacts cancer survivors’ quality of life when it remains untreated. Improvements in lifestyle behaviour are known to reduce mortality, comorbid conditions (i.e., cardiovascular diseases, other cancer, and recurrence) and cancer-related side-effects (i.e., fatigue and psychological issues). An inadequate stress response plays an important role in dysregulating the body’s autonomic, endocrine, and immune responses, creating a problematic back loop with pain. Next, given the high vulnerability of cancer survivors to insomnia, addressing and treating those sleep problems should be another target in pain management due to its capacity to increase hyperalgesia. Furthermore, adherence to a healthy diet holds great anti-inflammatory potential for relieving pain after cancer. Additionally, a healthy diet might go hand in hand with weight reduction in the case of obesity. Consuming alcohol and smoking have an acute analgesic effect in the short-term, with evidence lacking in the long-term. However, this acute effect is outweighed by other harms on cancer survivors’ general health. Last, informing patients about the benefits of an active lifestyle and reducing a sedentary lifestyle after cancer treatment must be emphasised when considering the proven benefits of physical activity in this population. A multimodal approach addressing all relevant lifestyle factors together seems appropriate for managing comorbid conditions, side-effects, and chronic pain after cancer. Further research is needed to evaluate whether modifiable lifestyle factors have a beneficial influence on chronic pain among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: The presence of pain decreases survival rates in cancer. Pain management in clinical settings is often suboptimal and secondary to other cancer-related treatments, leaving many people undertreated. Opioid use is associated with side effects and decreased survival rate in cancer patients. Hence, there is an urgent need for considering factors such as perceived injustice that sustain post-cancer pain and trigger a behavioral pattern associated with opioid use. Injustice beliefs represent a maladaptive pattern of cognitive appraisal that may be a salient target for improving pain-related coping in these patients. Perceived injustice is associated with increased opioid prescription and prospectively predicted opioid use at 1-year follow-up, urging the need for targeted interventions to diminish perceived injustice. OBJECTIVES: Explain the importance of screening for perceived injustice in patients with pain following cancer treatment, its potential relevance for opioid abuse, and its potential impact on the management of pain following cancer. Also, prove clinicians with a clinical guide for an approach comprising of modified pain neuroscience education, motivational interviewing, and acceptance-based interventions to account for perceived injustice in patients having pain following cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A narrative review, perspective and treatment manual SETTING: Several universities, a university of applied science department, a university hospital, and a private clinic (i.e., transdisciplinary pain treatment center). METHODS: Patients were cancer survivors with pain. Intervention included modified pain neuroscience education, motivational interviewing, and acceptance-based interventions. Measurements were taken through the Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ). RESULTS: The IEQ can be used to assess perceived injustice in a valid way. Education about pain, including discussing perceived injustice, should be the first part of the management of pain in cancer survivors. In order to obtain the often-required behavioral change towards a more adaptive lifestyle, motivational interviewing can be used. To thoroughly tackle perceived injustice in patients having pain following cancer, special emphasis should be given to the individual reasons patients identify for experiencing (continued) pain and related symptoms. Pain acceptance should also be thoroughly addressed. LIMITATIONS: Clinical trials exploring the benefits, including cost-effectiveness, of such a multimodal approach in patients with pain following cancer treatment are needed. CONCLUSIONS: In light of its potential relevance for opioid abuse and potential impact on conservative management strategies, clinicians are advised to screen for perceived injustice in patients with pain following cancer treatment. Therapeutic targeting of perceived injustice can be done through an approach comprising of modified pain neuroscience education, motivational interviewing, and acceptance-based interventions. KEY WORDS: Anger, cancer, counselling, education, medication use, motivational interviewing, neuroscience education, opioid, perceived injustice, rehabilitation, survivor

No abstract

Objective Multidimensional aspects of pain have raised awareness about cognitive appraisals, such as perceived injustice (PI) and pain catastrophizing (PC). It has been demonstrated that they play an important role in patients’ pain experience. However, the mediating effect of these appraisals has not been investigated in breast cancer survivors (BCS), nor have they been related to fatigue and sleep. Methods Cross-sectional data from 128 BCS were analysed by structural path analysis with the aim to examine the mediating effect of PI and PC in the relationship of pain on fatigue and sleep. Results The indirect mediating effects of PI on fatigue (CSI*PI = 0.21; P < 0.01 and VAS*PI = 1.19; P < 0.01) and sleep (CSI*PI = 0.31; P < 0.01 and VAS*PI = 1.74; P < 0.01) were found significant for both pain measures (Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)). PC, on the other hand, only mediated the relationship between pain measured by VAS and fatigue (VAS*PC = 0.80; P = 0.03). Positive associations were found, indicating that higher pain levels are positively correlated with PI and PC, which go hand in hand with higher levels of fatigue and sleep problems. Conclusion PI is an important mediator in the relationship of pain on fatigue and sleep, while PC is a mediator on fatigue after cancer treatment. These findings highlight that both appraisals are understudied and open new perspectives regarding treatment strategies in BCS.